Manalili v CA (GR
113447) Oct. 9, 1997
Facts:
At about
2:10 PM on April 11, 1988, Police Anti-Narcotics Unit of Kalookan City
conducted surveillance along A. Mabini Street, in front of the Kalookan City
Cemetery. This was done after receiving information that drug addicts were
roaming around said area.
Upon
reaching the cemetery, the policemen chanced upon a male person, the
petitioner, in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The petitioner
had reddish eyes and was walking in a swaying manner.
Petitioner
was trying to avoid the policemen, but the officers were able to introduce
themselves and asked him what he was holding in his hands. Petitioner resisted.
Policeman Espiritu asked him if he could see what the petitioner had in his
hands. The petitioner showed his wallet and allowed the officer to examine it.
Policeman Espiritu found suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. He kept
the wallet and its marijuana contents and took petitioner to headquarters to be
further investigated.
The
suspected marijuana was sent to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section for
analysis.
Issue:
Whether or
not the search and seizure of the suspected marijuana is unreasonable, and
hence inadmissible as evidence.
Held:
The general
rule is a search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial
warrant; otherwise, such a search and seizure is unconstitutional and subject
to challenge. Any evidence obtained in violation of this constitutionally
guaranteed right is legally inadmissible in any proceeding.
The
exceptions to the rule are: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2)
search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and
(5) waiver by the accused of their right against unreasonable search and
seizure. In these cases, the search and seizure may be made only with probable
cause. Probable cause being at best defined as a reasonable ground of
suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the
offense with which he is charged; or the existence of such facts and
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that an offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or
object(s) sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and
destruction by is in the place to be searched.
Additionally,
stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the general
rule against a search without a warrant.
In the
present case, petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of the evidence
illegally obtained when he failed to raise the issue or object thereto during
the trial.